Anti-Poaching Lawsuit Against Apple, Google and Others Given the Green Light 172
An anonymous reader writes "A class action lawsuit against Apple, Google and a number of other high-profile tech companies has been given the green light by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh. The lawsuit stems from anti-poaching agreements that Apple a number of tech companies entered into from 2005 through 2009. Parties to the agreement all promised not to recruit employees from one another. The companies involved include Apple, Intel, Google, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Adobe."
Wellcome to corporate captialism (Score:5, Funny)
...you get to see the tip of the iceberg
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by the color and smell, I don't think that's an iceberg.
(Unless all pictures of icebergs I've ever seen are "embellished", in which case I pity the survivors from the Titanic).
Re:Wellcome to corporate captialism (Score:4, Funny)
Put much after a sentence fragment much?
God I hate this trend. Putting "much" after a half-developed question does not make the question cool. I wish this would die.
And now I'm sure someone will respond with something like "Sensitive much?"
Re: (Score:3)
lol u mad bro?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, right...all we need to do is get rid of "Big Gov" and then "Big Biz" fix it all for us.
I don't know about you, but in my life I've been screwed a lot more by "Big Biz" than by "Big Gov".
Re: (Score:3)
Also the NSA don't give a flying fuck about you, what Snowden revealed is all about economic espionage. When you've lived through a dozen Snowden's y
Time to update California laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to add anti-poaching to the California Business and Professions code to make it strictly forbidden. This keeps coming up year-after year. There needs to be a law to protect the free market for talent. California should lead the way, but it would be really nice to see it at the Federal level as well.
Re: (Score:2)
That's such a futile approach to becoming an absolute bayernude, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All citizens deserve a basic level of protection against exploitation from greedy entities.
I think that's both too strong, and stronger than is relevant here. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing fraud, and in preventing price fixing. Those more concrete protections are far better things to insist on - especially since they're also requirements for a free market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time to update California laws (Score:5, Funny)
Is an update really necessary? Isn't collusion already illegal? The only difference between this and some almond growers secretly meeting to fix prices is that the almonds are people. OMG, I just realized something. People are almonds, corporations are people, therefore... Corporations are almonds. I'm not sure exactly what we've discovered here; but I'm pretty sure it involves quantum mechanics and heavy drinking.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe you were just drunk last night and watched Soylent Green while eating almonds.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure I remember a joke from my Quantum professor about that, involving an easily memorable statement of the digits in Pi out to 15 digits.
Ah, yes... here it is:
How I need a drink, alcoholic of course after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
3.14159265358989
Re: (Score:2)
Is an update really necessary? Isn't collusion already illegal? The only difference between this and some pistachio growers secretly meeting to fix prices is that the pistachios are people. OMG, I just realized something. People are pistachios , corporations are people, therefore... Corporations are pistachios .
Fix that for you... Now we can have pistachio cracking jokes...
Corporations do it behind closed doors....
Re: (Score:3)
IIRC there is already some federal laws on this. Part of the laws forbid cooperation on hiring which are part of the labor laws / monopoly laws. Part of the law forbids pooching, in particular when one firm tries hiring away entire departments from another firm, as an anti-competitive tactic.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think there's a government or large organization in the world that doesn't have at least some employees pooching. It's practically a sport in some cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, and in some cases that it’s perfectly fine but not so much in others. Let’s take the current World Series. The Red Socks can’t pouch all of the Cardinals’ pitchers in the middle of the series. That would be a exterme case. That would be anti-competitive – as well as breaking some MLB rules.
The pouching cases I am thinking about is when everybody (from the department manager to the assistants) in a functional department (sales office, specialized technical team, or s
Re: (Score:2)
Red Sox cannot poach Cardinals' pitchers during the World Series because there are collective bargaining clauses between the league and players associations to bar that from happening. But Red Sox can sign any free agent from Cardinals when they are available.
There are no such collective bargaining agreements between employees and employers in Silicon Valley. You are working with "at will" agreements which can be broken at any time. There is nothing stopping anyone from poaching other company's employees, s
Re: (Score:2)
The pouching cases I am thinking about is when everybody (from the department manager to the assistants) in a functional department (sales office, specialized technical team, or something else that is self-contained.) hands in their resignation letters en mass at 4 p.m. on Friday and show up across the street on Monday doing their old job for a competitor. I have seen some companies seriously gimped by such a move. In the case of a sales office defecting there are supposed to leave client lists behind but they almost never do.
I suppose that was in one of those places in the USA where the company could have fired the whole department as well if they wanted to, leaving their employees "seriously gimped". Now a company has no feelings and no wife and children, while the employees have feelings, wives and children, so what?
Re: (Score:3)
I do not believe you understand the meaning of the word "pooching". Nor do I, but I'm assuming it is a despicable act...
Re:Time to update California laws (Score:4, Informative)
pooching (v)
To conceal something in one's vagina, usually for the purpose of hiding it from the police or security guards
The act of inhaling dogs farts to get high off them.
Havng sex with any dog of a girl that will go to bed with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn the Urban Dictionary ... I was referring to "screwing the pooch".
Be Careful What You Wish For... (Score:3)
they've been busted under CURRENT LAW. A million (Score:2)
While we're at it, let's make it illegal to murder someone in_the_morning. Oh wait, California already did that I bet.
Half of the companies involved have already paid up. With the most recent ruling, the judge is saying the others will probably be held liable too. As the Palm CEO said, this is already illegal and has been for along time. We don't need more laws, a few million pages is enough.
Oddly, it's the opposite going the other way in some states. Employees are REQUIRED to collude and stick by t
Re: (Score:2)
California has one vital thing going for it: Weather. Executives want to live here because of it. Executives want to have there employees close to manage them. (Especially at a start up) That's why Gov. Perry was largely unsuccessful in wooing California tech companies to Texas. While large scale manufacturing can be done anywhere, R&D is still predominately stateside and on the Left coast due to the favorable weather.
Lawyer settle (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical class actions: Lawyers will settle for $20 million dollars for the lawyers and $3 for each person who didn't get a job.
Re: (Score:2)
That's ok. Most of those people got $20M in stock options.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then the lawyers shouldn't get to hit the jackpot. It's supposed to be a "justice system", not a giant lottery system for lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-Trust (Score:2)
wtf? in the 21st Century? This looks like a clear violation of the US Anti-Trust rules against agreeing not to compete in a market. Or agreeing to boycott suppliers. Even a wink is illegal.
I work for a similar mega-corp and we are continually drilled in the importance of Anti-Trust. Where were their lawyers?
Monopsony is far worse than monopoly because you can always decline to buy. Does anyone have any explanation beyond rank corruption?
Cue Sealed Settlement in 10...9...8...7... (Score:3)
The only persons that win these are the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're half right - an open, unsealed settlement would do just that.
Price fixing (Score:2)
... is "the maintaining of prices at a certain level by agreement between competing sellers". Switch sellers to employers and prices to wages, and you've got what this agreement is, and it should be just as illegal.
I don't get it.. (Score:3)
Maybe I'm not understanding this agreement, but to me it sounds like they just agreed not to actively recruit from each other. I've never seen anything indicating that, for example, an Apple employee couldn't apply for a position at Google (and vice versa).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats really, really bad (Score:2)
That blows the "Dont be Evil" thing right out of the water.
Someone should give Palm CEO Ed Colligan A Medal (Score:5, Informative)
From Ed response to Steve Jobs:
"Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal. [...] Palm doesn't target other companies -- we look for the best people we can find. l'd hope the same could be said about Apple's practices. However, during the last year or so, as Apple geared up to compete with Palm in the phone space, Apple hired at least 2 percent of Palm's workforce. To put it in perspective, had Palm done the same, we'd have hired 300 folks from Apple. Instead, to my knowledge, we've hired just three."
Reminds me of Borland (Score:2)
When I worked for Borland we used to joke that we were Microsoft's training site, because so many employees were either recruited away or just plain left for MS.
Even the non-compete's don't work because MS have so many types of projects they can put you on something different till your non-compete expires.
What they think of you. (Score:2)
The fact that this phenomenon has been given the term "poaching" by these corporations shows exactly what they think of you, the tech worker.
Re: (Score:2)
A rare breed worth risking your neck to hunt?
Re: (Score:2)
"Risk"? What risk is that?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I'm referring to how it's used in reference to corporate hiring and human resources.
The fact that snatching employees away from other corporations is called "poaching" is an indication of what they think of you.
Finally a use for that Apple cash stockpile (Score:2)
If this doesn't end up like a typical class action suite Apple and the other big players could end up paying out Billions in damages, probably making it the most expensive lawsuit ever and making an ever so small dent in the mountains of cash they've managed to pile up.
Re: (Score:3)
If this doesn't end up like a typical class action suite Apple and the other big players could end up paying out Billions in damages, probably making it the most expensive lawsuit ever and making an ever so small dent in the mountains of cash they've managed to pile up.
That is sarcasm, right? You damn well know that this is going to end up like a typical class action suit. At worst the companies will have to pay out a few million dollars each and apologize. The lawyers will get rich, and the employees will get just enough to buy a Big Mac.
Lazy editors ... fix the grammar in the title ... (Score:2)
"... that Apple a number of tech companies ..."
should be:
"... that Apple and a number of tech companies ..."
membership of criminal organization? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean that the boards of these organizations will get prosecuted for membership of a criminal organization? Will all profits (including the ones made abroad) be ceased? After all, this is large scale fixing of prices (for labor) by large, evidently criminal organizations. If the Mafia bosses go to jail for stuff like this and all their money taken, why not these companies?
Because mafia bosses only give bribes at the municipal level. These large organizations give bribes ("campaign contributions") at the federal level.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not to worry, as soon as this class action lawsuit is won, every employee will get a $20 coupon at the Microsoft store! What has any union ever done for anyone by comparison?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>>even non-union employees have rights, too?
Indeed, which is why we're reading an article about how prohibitions against unionizing helped prevent anti-poaching agreements between corporations.
Ah who am I kidding, what I just typed makes about as much sense as what you typed, and is loaded with just as much bias!
Re:Where's the union? (Score:5, Informative)
Anti-poaching is only one means by which corporations weaken workers. Illegal retaliatory firing for union organizing is another. The suit is about maintaining a free market in labor. Union membership is one way that individuals participate in that free market. The decline in union membership is a major cause of the decline in the income of American workers.
As documented in Robert Reich's book Super-Capitalism, the most productive and prosperous time in US history was the age (1950s-1960s) of collaboration between big government, big business, and big labor. With labor out of the picture and government oversight waning, is it any wonder that corporations are feasting on the bones of their powerless workforce?
Re:Where's the union? (Score:4, Informative)
That's not the reason for decline in income. The reason for decline in income is lack of jobs because of all of the cheaper off-shore labor and increased the supply of workers in the US. Wage laws, regulations, and an environment generally unfriendly towards manufacturing ultimately drove any industry that doesn't HAVE to operate in the US OUT of the US to places that were happy to have the jobs at all.
If you had all of those jobs back and a thriving manufacturing industry again, the supply of workers would be much thinner, unemployment would be virtual non-existent unless by choice and because of that the wages / compensation would increase in order to attract and retain people. All we've done in the US is drive away a lot of jobs. There's plenty of places in the US where income levels are just fine and those are the areas where there is demand.
You create demand, the income levels will take care of themselves.
The Boeing thing has been especially interesting. As they've started things up in SC, Union workers have come down from Seattle trying to get people to organize to try to convince people that they aren't making enough. The general response they're getting is that most people are just happy to have a job...which is a point that a lot of people tend to forget when they start talking about wanting "more" vs wanting "anything".
Re: (Score:2)
In this particular poaching agreement you're looking at compression of 5-10% at most. So it's fairly modest. I suspect salaries were not the key reason for the agreement. This is more about disruption of timelines because of overheads like ramp up, training and recruiting. There's also a bit of ego about loosing a resource to a direct competitor. You get things like Balmer breaking stuff when he finds out it's Google poaching talent.
All that being said, the core reason these companies went with anti-po
Re:Where's the union? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now that all the jobs are disseminated to 3rd/4th world areas without any worker protection, the power is gone and won't be coming back.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no such thing as "the 4th world". It's something you just made up. For the record: 1st world: USA and its allies. 2nd world: USSR and its satellites. Doesn't exist anymore, it's an obsolete term. 3rd world: everyone else.
Unions were the reason jobs left offshore in the first place. Unions only care about the interests of union bosses - to pretend that they represent workers is laughable.
Re: (Score:2)
While that might work initially, other businesses see that and make decisions to never get involved because of it. There is no situation short of bad working conditions where unions have any actual benefit long term. In the short term, people might be able to extract higher wages but in the long term they'll both kill the business and drive others away.
There is a reason that almost all new manufacturing in the US is located in the south east and it's not because all of those businesses thought union heavy e
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for decline in income is lack of jobs because of all of the cheaper off-shore labor and increased the supply of workers in the US.
Maybe, but before all that offshoring we couldn't buy a blender the cost of 2 cheeseburgers like we can now. Really, what's more important, the economy and all that nonsense, or being able to get dirt cheap stuff made out of plastic!
Re: (Score:2)
The 50s and 60s need to be erased from memory concerning policy decisions, because the prosperity at that time is heavily biased by the fact that Europe and Japan were destroyed, and the United States was the only shop in town.
LOL "collusion promotes a free market" (Score:3)
> The suit is about maintaining a free market in labor.
> Union membership is one way that individuals participate in that free market.
Lol. Did you just say that collusion, enforced by the government, is "free market"? Unions, organized, enforceable collusion, are exactly the opposite of free market.
A free market means I can hire your teenage son at $20 / hour to change lightbulbs, if you want to do that job at that price. Unions mean I better contract that job out, because I'm only allowed to hi
Re: (Score:2)
The suit, originally brought forth by five software engineers in 2011, alleges that the anti-poaching agreements served to lessen their employment opportunities, thereby weakening their negotiating power and ultimately affecting the salaries they were able to command.
Wait, what?
I've been told for years that the only way employees can ever fight their employer is if a union represents them and does all the negotiations. Now you mean to tell me that even non-union employees have rights, too?
That depends. If you are able to sell a unique skill - yourself - you can do that well. If you are more of a commodity, you'll be nickel and dimed [wikipedia.org]. Often with a salary so low you need public support on top of it [chicagobusiness.com], and also forego healthcare. These could really need a union.
That said, where I live I think unions are too strong. But they are a needed balance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where's the union? (Score:5, Informative)
The suit, originally brought forth by five software engineers in 2011, alleges that the anti-poaching agreements served to lessen their employment opportunities, thereby weakening their negotiating power and ultimately affecting the salaries they were able to command.
Wait, what?
I've been told for years that the only way employees can ever fight their employer is if a union represents them and does all the negotiations. Now you mean to tell me that even non-union employees have rights, too?
Yes, it's possible. If you have the money and the time you can even get it to court. Then it's you, and maybe a few others, against the combined experience and cash of the justice a multi billion dollar company can buy.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I should have worded my response differently. I fail to see the problem an anti poaching agreement fixes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because those brand new graduates will be getting paid the same as the superstar who was poached.
Oh wait....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[...] but it's bad for potential employees fresh out of school. No employer wants to be the one to front the capital to train them. They would just rather poach someone that will be effective on day 1.
People just out of school should be capable of being effective, day 1, or they went to the wrong school, or they simply didn't avail themselves of the opportunities at the school they went to, and did the minimum effort trajectory from enrollment to degree, and therefore their degree is pretty much worthless anyway.
If you have a 4 year CS degree, and an employer STILL has to train you in how to solve problems using a computer writing code in the C language, then the problem is with you. The school you went
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)
People get paid more? I think you're confused. Anti-poaching agreements results in employees being paid less.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confused too.
Surely the part where I said "Companies get to get the people they want" would infer I fail to see the purpose of an anti poaching agreement.
Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (Score:5, Insightful)
Let the free market work its magic. Companies should start using employment contracts for stellar performers so that they don't have to fear them leaving for competitors, and the contract can be renegotiated every 2-3 years, if the stellar employee doesn't like the terms, they can walk when the contract expires.
And once your anti-poaching agreement kicks in, that employee will spend 6 months unemployed, then come back begging for the same job at half the pay! Free market FTW!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
People who are truly good at what they do should be paid well....
Actually it is quite the opposite: MoneyInTheBank == Freedom. If you truly want to be free, you must make the effort and do this, otherwise you will always get the short end of the stick.
If you really want indentured servitude, just continue with the secret no-poach agreements, and the H-1B visa program....
Re: (Score:2)
"Any smart employee will have at least 1 year of living expenses banked."
and I suppose that's easy to do because everyone graduates from college with a year's living expenses in the bank and no debts
Re: (Score:2)
How does that benefit the employee? Why would I ever sign a contract like that?
Re: (Score:2)
Guaranteed period of employment in exchange for not defecting to a competitor during that period.
Re: (Score:2)
A stellar employee would probably hate that. What if the company sucks? Now the employee has a great salary but is forced to work with people he doesn't like. What's the point of that? Without the contract, he could have just quit and gotten another job with another company.
Unions and job contracts are great for run-of-the-mill workers who have little hope of job mobility. The anti-poaching agreements were not created for those employees. They were created for employees who can easily get another job
Re: (Score:2)
Then he doesn't sign the contract, and instead goes to work for someone else. You get to make your decision every 2-3 years. The difference between this and anti-poaching is that this is actually a contract with considerations on both sides. Anti-poaching is just screwing the employee.
Or they could do it like executives, wrapping up much of the compensation in ways that depend on long-term employment.
Re:Employment Contracts for stellar peformers (Score:5, Informative)
Because if you are truly a stellar employee, you can put in the contract what YOU think your raise should be and not be beholden to what the company thinks your raise should be.
It balances the concept of salary negotiations, however, there is a risk that if you are not a truly stellar employee, the company will not want to renew your contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a company deal with contracts like that when they can just have a industry non-poaching agreement?
That's just as free market.
The free market ends when government comes in and creates these annoying anti-trust laws.
Please read Adam Smith again. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Tech employees have no reason to sign onto those agreements unless there was a buy-out for early termination. Although that's typical in C level employment contracts I think you'd be hard pressed to get executives to offer them to rank and file folks. Even if they are stellar performers.
Re: (Score:2)
RE: "Let the free market work its magic" ..." is something they already do with non-compete clauses.
I'm not sure you understand the anti-poaching agreement or what we're talking about. Anti-poaching agreements are between corporations and are usually secret.
It's not part of an employment contract. The equivalent in an employment contract is a "non-compete clause".
We're not talking about non-compete clause in the original article; The suggestion that "Companies should start using employment contracts
What yo
Re: (Score:2)
Regular employment in Canada does not involve a contract either. You fill in some government tax and WSIB forms and you are an employee. It's not quite as at-will as in the US (employer owes you termination and severance pay if they terminate you without cause), but you can leave at will.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it depends on whether the agreement was not to hire from each other, or not to actively recruit from each other. In my opinion, the former is evil (and should be illegal), the latter is not.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it depends on whether the agreement was not to hire from each other, or not to actively recruit from each other. In my opinion, the former is evil (and should be illegal), the latter is not.
It's just a matter of degree. The former is more damaging to employees than the latter, but they are both damaging.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen these situations before. You'll have job market employers who wants application engineers with current experience of device driver internals for particular hardware or vendors. Then they'll have a non-poaching agreement with those vendors, then complain there is a shortage of qualified candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my God! My entire world view is shattered. I have to kill myself!
Have a look on google, I'm sure it will help you
Re: (Score:2)
These aren't laws. They're private agreements between companies to limit poaching of employees. The only government interference here would be to make such agreements illegal, punishing companies that tried to limit the competition between them for the best employees.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be okay with that.